good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with the bottom line argument of the national rifle association. why can't we have background checks on who buys a gun? because we can't. why can't we? because we're going to filibuster. why? because we don't want background checks. why don't you want background checks? because we're going to have guards at schools instead. how do you know that they don't have mental problems? because we're going to force them to have background checks. got it?

we'll only give guards to background checks because that way, you see, we make sure everyone has to buy a gun. got it? do you? we sell guns. yesterday here on "hardball," the gun owners of america had no defense for his opposition to background checks. >> why is it bad for the government of the united states to maintain information on wife bet beaters, addicts, criminals, so they don't get access to firearms. what's wrong with that? >> they are going to get access to firearms anyway. >> they oppose background checks, as he just did for gun owners. when it comes to making schools safer, they are all for background checks. this week on national rifle association task force came out with recommendations to allegedly make schools safer, not surprisingly arming school

employees, including teachers is a big part of the plan. but buried inside the report is this bit of hypocrisy. it's recommended that schools perform a pre-employment background check and periodic rechecks on all employees, including a criminal check. the same thing that the nra fought so strenuously. also this week, the nra opposed a u.n. treaty that restricts gun sales to groups that commit war crimes. why? because any restriction could eventually restrict the gun owner passing 154 nations, 154 countries to three and the nra found itself in the esteem courts. iran, north korea, and syria. that's our new crowd. ron reagan is a radio talk show host and msnbc contributor. mayor brown, having run for the city, you know about public safety. the strange nra thinking is you can't let a teacher or armed guard or retired police officer work in the school protecting the student body unless they've had a thorough background checks

and you have to have a recheck to make sure they kept their nose clean and yet if you say that about a typical gun purchaser, don't ask nothing. no questions. give the guy the freaking gun. that's the way they want to do it. guns on demand like you're buying a hershey bar. that's it. it's a hershey bar. i think i'd like one. i'm going to try that. background check? are you crazy? that's the hideous argument they make. check out the guy who's going to guard the kids, but don't check out the guy who's buying the gun to go after the kids. >> that's typical of what the nra has been producing and pushing among politicians for years. and it's totally and completely frankly, they are out to lunch on the issue altogether. >> have they made a mistake, ron, to actually expose some

critical thinking here on how you hire school guards? by employing usual logic when it doesn't come to guns? they're exploring the fact that maybe there is such a thing as common sense here and they ought to be consistent. >> yeah, your annoyance is right on the money there. what annoys you, i think, is that you're being asked to accept arguments which are fatuous nonsense on their face. wayne lapierre gives fatuousness a bad name. for instance, the size of magazines, he doesn't want them being restricted to ten bullets per magazine, you know, because it only takes a second to change magazines anyway. so 10 bullets, 30 bullets, what difference does it make to the mass murderer? however, if you're defending your home, then you really need the bigger magazine all the time because, you know, you can't just be switching out magazines all the time. >> well, once again, it's megyn kelly over at fox who did the hard work here. she had npr, actually i say

npr -- national rifle association. the very thing you're talking about. watch this strangeness that's coming up here. here's wayne against meagan. let's watch. >> if there's anything that moves people in this country or has moved them in one direction or the other recently, it is that newtown tragedy. and you hear the parents and the spouses of those killed. 20 children and 6 adults killed. say 11 children had the chance to escape as that guy reloaded. >> criminals aren't going to have less one round in the hand of someone that's going to do horror is too many. >> how to you know, wayne? let me just jump in. i'll give you the floor, i promise. adam lanza, his mother was a legal gun owner. how do you know this person, his mother would not have obeyed the law and limited the magazine clip and adam lanza would have been limited to 10 rounds instead of 30? >> meagan, people that know guns, you can change magazine clips in a second.

there's no evidence that, you know, that anything would have changed. >> so you go to the gun salesman, mayor, and you go to buy a 30-round clip and he says, don't waste your money, young man, because you know you can change those magazines really fast in a matter of seconds. just take the ten-round one. this is the stupidest argument. they want the 30-round clips because they want to have access to them for hunters i guess. i don't know who. or people defending themselves in their homes against the government. but, you know, yet they say we can flick this thing out of here in ten seconds. apparently up in newtown, luckily, it's not that easy for a nut to change clips. >> all their arguments are crazy. that one in particular is crazy. that's wrong. if you have to change a clip, that gives a few seconds for somebody to save their lives or others to be able to assist in saving their lives. there's no question about that,

except if the nra says we want the maximum opportunity. i suspect the dianne feinstein, the senator from california, is right. they really want bazookas. they're not just looking for clips. >> well, if you ask them, they would legalize them, i'm sure. bring up a vote, ask wayne lapierre if he wants to outlaw tommy guns. he'd say no. anyway, last night i had to do a little victory lap for last night. a lot of people liked this. i challenged larry pratt. gun owners of america. gun salesmen of america i think. he's opposing background checks. let's watch this kerfuffle. the ill logic of this is as follows. if i walked into a gun store to you and looked like a nut, a crazy person, would you sell me a gun? >> no, and frequently gun dealers experience that and -- >> so if you could call up and find out in a matter of seconds whether this person has a mental capacity, a problem, and has been court ordered not to be operating in any way with a gun, why wouldn't you want to take advantage of that information? >> chris, even after you've done

that, the chap that's been turned down can easily go somewhere else -- >> where? >> and they do. >> where do they go? >> they get them on the street. >> that's what we're tieing to stop. you can't have private sales, can't have internet sales. >> you think criminals are going to obey that? >> so the argument would be, why do we check mayor, people, before they get on an airplane to make sure they're not carrying something dangerous? they could always get on some other airplane. they'll find some guy who isn't doing his job that day. i mean, these arguments, why have squad cars last night because they can't be in front of every store, every minute? they occasionally show up so it discourages crime. this isn't about ideology. this is about money. the nra's point you were talking about here seems to be there's no purpose in having any law whatsoever because criminals will just break the laws anyway. >> yeah, isn't that wonderful? >> that's their rational. >> ron reagan, have a nice weekend. may wror brown

mayor brown, thanks for coming on. and a new bill that calls for cuts on medicare and social security. some son the left are not surprised. 2016 is simmering. emerging matchups for the next presidential elections. don't want democrats to vote? simple. republicans in north carolina figured out a way to keep students from voting in their own state. raise mom and dad's taxes. and to take the first step to debt reduction. this is hardball. the place for politics. the usual, bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib: atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option:

once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective to reduce the risk of an afib-related stroke. there is limited data on how these drugs compare when warfarin is well managed. no routine blood monitoring means bob can spend his extra time however he likes. new zealand! xarelto® is just one pill a day, taken with the evening meal. and with no dietary restrictions, bob can eat the healthy foods he likes. do not stop taking xarelto® rivaroxaban without talking to the doctor who prescribes it for you. stopping may increase your risk of having a stroke. get medical help right away if you develop any signs or symptoms of bleeding, like unusual bruising or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto® with aspirin products, nsaids or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto® if you currently have abnormal bleeding.

xarelto® can cause bleeding, which can be serious, and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto®, and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto® before any planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions, such as kidney, liver or bleeding problems. ready to change your routine? ask your doctor about once-a-day xarelto®. for more information including cost support options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit goxarelto.com.

we're back. president obama did a gutsy thing today. he's going to into deuce a bill

to make republicans vote for higher taxes and make democrats agree to cuts in social security. in some case this is a win-win for the president. either republicans agree to higher taxes or the republicans fold their arms again and say no again and are exposed to everyone in the country preferring to protect the rich over making a real deal. the president is a leader. he's saying we can help reduce the debt over time significantly. now i want to be followed by the republicans as well as the democrats in doing something on the revenue side. the there are risks to doing this. why did the president take the risk? >> well, because our goal every day what we do here is focused on what is going to strengthen job creation and help the middle class and right now, we are weighing down this economy with a sequester that's going to cost

hundreds of thousands of jobs. and uncertainty about our fiscal future. and uncertainty created by manufactured crisis because we don't have the ability in washington right now to compromise. now, the president put forward today not his ideal budget. he put forward a compromise offer that he had done, given to speaker boehner, and it included some very tough things but it asked for sensible entitlement reforms that strengthen those core benefit programs. medicare, social security. it asks for revenue savings in the very way that speaker boehner had asked for it just months ago. not by raising rates more. by tax reform that would close loopholes and tax expenditures and apply it to deficit reduction. >> i think you're right. >> we can do this while we still invest in the future, but you're right, just what you said. you know, you're not going to get this compromise unless everybody's willing to give, everybody's willing to show a little courage and a little compromise and the president's

leading by doing so. >> i can follow this, gene, pretty much through having worked on the senate budget committee. i see it getting probably through the senate. you've got enough votes to get it through, i think. then i can see it getting to the house then i see paul ryan carving up his ayn rand theories. and ideologies and all that crazy stuff. if you do the right thing, get it through the senate but in the end the budget process proceeds through may and perhaps into june, you end up having a log jam on the other side. what happens then? what happens then? >> well, let me make a couple points. number one, we were very close with speaker boehner last fall. let's remember, he had $1 trillion of revenues on the table as part of a deal with serious entitlement savings. he's pulled that back completely. even though only 60% of that, of that kind of revenue increase was passed. so we've been close. unfortunately, they've decided to take, as you mentioned, an absolutist position which does not help us compromise. secondly, you know, what do we teach our kids?

government? we teach that when a bill passes the house and senate, it can two to a conference report. >> i know. >> both houses and both parties can work together. we ought to give that a chance. >> i see what you're doing. you're going the right road here. going to try to get a budget, going to try to get a compromise. here's boehner's reaction. here's boehner's reaction here. "if the president believes those modest entitlement savings are needed to shore up these problems, there's no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes. that's no way to lead the country." this is like the russians, the soviets used to be. i'll take what you're offering then we'll negotiate back from there. he's not giving anything here. >> yeah, let's think about what that position is, and i think how few people at home would support that. he's saying that as part of a larger deficit reduction plan which is part of an economic

strategy to strengthen jobs in our economy, that there's not, are you ready for this? there's not one single penny, not one, that you can get from any tax expenditure, any special interest tax break, any loophole for the most well-off american that you can apply for deficit reduction. you know, i just do believe that there are sensible republicans and democrats who want to be part of what the president said is a common sense caucus. normally someone had to lead. have to, you know, i want the baby back, here's your 100,000 bucks. you know, you have to do it at exactly the same time. in this case the republicans didn't want to do it the exact same time. the democrats, the president has to lead. i think it has trickiness involved in it. we'll see. >> i think you're right in the sense the president is doing like what you said a hostage exchange. he's saying we know republicans

want something very specific. they would like to cut entitlements. just to set the stage here, democrats should understand, republicans would like to either raise the retirement age or deeply cut entitlements either by doing it that way or by privatizing the program. okay? that's the stage that we're working in. the president is saying i'm not going to do either of those things but i will give some entitlement cuts. but i'm only giving you that, republicans, if you give me revenues. you have to give me something that i want which is revenues in order to get the thing you really, really want which is to cut social security. democrats, of course, hate this and take an absolutist position on cutting social security benefits for a good reason because of what i just said. they know what republicans really want to do and don't want to open the door. if you look at the president's proposal, he's not talking about medicaid and medicare cuts. he's talking about going to chain cpi which is a slight change. it does cut benefits. let's be clear about that. but in return, he's looking for revenue and investments, things like universal pre-k. as gene sperling said, these tax look hole changes to how much you can put into your i.r.a. that could impact the wealthy.

the president is trying to do a delicate dance here knowing probably nancy pelosi could deliver the votes in the house, probably harry reid could do it in the senate, but will republicans give something that they've already offered before to get something? >> we don't have to get even farther down the road here because as i was running it through, game planning it here, once they put it up there in the senate, get it through the democratic senate what we're talking about with some revenue enhancement, they're going to have to go to the house side and get a conference agreement. at some point the danger here, of course, is the congress, itself, will grab hold of the cuts. >> that's right. >> on the benefits side. put them into a budget, but them into a reconciliation bill and the president will end up with cuts he's agreed to without getting revenues he's wanted. there's always a tricky part of that. polling wise, this puts the president on the political good side of the angels. a recent mcclatchy/marist poll. when asked who they trust more to make the right decision on the budget, half say the president compared to 41%. he has a substantial advantage over them. when asked who's responsible when the party is in gridlock? 34% blame the president. he goes into the fight with street credit. obama is trying to do the right thing. i know some people on the very hard lost, maybe professional

left to use a terrible phrase, who aren't going to go along with anything he does. i tell you, sometimes you just have to get off the dime to put it bluntly. >> the thing is because the president keeps offering things that are substantive, he's really giving something that's painful to his side. that's why the public always sees him as the guy who's willing to compromise. he doesn't give away petty things. he gives away real -- >> cpi. >> chain cpi is something real. by the way, the little secret some departments don't say, center for budget priorities said they're okay with it if you exempt the floor by not having -- >> the conscience. >> the center for american progress proposed going to chain cpi back in 2010 in a big paper they did on social security. these are ideas that are not foreign to left. democrats, again, take an absolutist position. they don't want to open the door to cutting benefits. >> bob greenstein, by the way, republicans are trying to stop young people from voting by raising their parents' taxes. this is hardball. the place for politics. the carful?

how about...by the bowlful? campbell's soups give you nutrition, energy, and can help you keep a healthy weight. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. campbell's. [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk. it will if it's new outlast stay fabulous foundation. can your longwear makeup last 'til five o'clock?

it's a primer, concealer and foundation in one for all day flawless skin. new outlast stay fabulous from easy, breezy, beautiful covergirl. by the armful? by the barrelful? the carful? how about...by the bowlful? campbell's soups give you nutrition, energy, and can help you keep a healthy weight. campbell's.

ha! back to "hardball." now to the sideshow. first a little round of where are they now? remember joe walsh? he's the former illinois u.s. congressman who lost his bid for re-election to democrat tammy duckworth last year. walsh resurfaced at a town hall this week blaming his 2012 election loss on, you guessed it, democrats who promise people free stuff. >> maybe this is why i lost. i traveled the entire district and i said, my name's joe walsh, if you vote for me, i'm not giving you a darn thing. my opponent walked around saying, i'll give you this, by way, you need a new shirt. i'll give you a new watch. i'll take care of you. i'll pay for your haircut tomorrow. this is how our politicians get paid. will we ever have a majority of this country that will vote for me when i say, i'm joe walsh, if you vote for me, i won't give you a darn thing. i'm trying to cut what

washington takes from you so that you can keep more of what's yours, now go live your life and be happy. >> that goes to the 47%. takers and makers stuff from last election. of course. he's got company. former south carolina senator jim demint kicked off his first day as president of the conservative heritage foundation with a letter to the staff saying, "more people than ever before, 69.5 million americans from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries defend on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid or other assistance. the united states must reverse the direction of these trends or face economic or social collapse." you remember him as the florida republican who said 71 to 81 race specific house members are members of the party. anyway, west traveled to l.a. as part of his web series recently and had a tough time adjusting.

>> i have to correct a nice young lady at a nearby lunch stop who wanted to put sprouts on my turkey and swiss sandwich? i had someone ask me if i want to go to a real nice sushi restaurant, but i had to tell them that i don't eat bait. needless to say, it has, indeed, been interesting being out here in l.a. >> well, there you have it. both allen west and joe walsh have said another run for office is not off the table. hmm. next, the latest republican spin on voting restrictions. this time it's about college students from north carolina who register to vote at their college address. if it's up to some republican lawmakers in the state, that decision could cost their parents. according to a new bill, "if the voter is a dependent of the voters' parent or legal guardian is 18 years of age or older and the voter has registered at an address other than that of the parent or legal guardian, the parent or legal guardian will not be allowed to claim the voter as dependent for state income tax purposes." north carolina does not want young people voting democrat in

their state. this bill parents pay more in taxes if their child votes near campus. finally, a slip of the tongue from first lady michelle obama. alright, bring the model in on the set! work the camera... work it! those hands. oooh la la! what's your secret? dawn? [ female announcer ] dawn hand renewal with olay beauty improves the look and feel of hands in 5 uses. love it, or get double your money back. [ jen garner ] what skincare brand is so effective... so trusted... so clinically proven dermatologists recommend it twice as much as any other brand? neutrogena®. recommended by dermatologists 2 times more than any other brand. now that's beautiful. neutrogena®. ♪